From SMH
October 29, 2006 - 12:29PM
Australia's crippling drought will worsen if the Howard government succeeds in its push for nuclear power, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says.
Addressing the New Zealand Labour Party conference in Rotorua, Mr Beattie said an independent study commissioned by the Queensland government showed a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired power station.
"At a time when our farming communities are hurting badly, it is a folly for (Prime Minister John) Howard to be entertaining the thought of nuclear power stations in Queensland or anywhere else," he said.
"Many towns and shires in our state are struggling to get enough drinking water, let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle."
Mr Howard established a review, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, in June as part of his push for nuclear power to be considered in the nation's future energy mix.
Mr Beattie said a coal-fired power station produced up to 1,400 megawatts of electricity a year and used around 19,500 megalitres of water to condense and recycle steam.
He said a nuclear power station producing the same output would need about 25,000 megalitres.
"That is the equivalent of at least an additional 5,000 Olympic-size swimming pools a year," Mr Beattie said.
"It is water that we simply cannot afford when drought and climate change are drying up water supplies."
He said nuclear power stations needed a guaranteed water supply and a strong connection to an electricity grid, implying a nuclear power plant would need to be close to the eastern seaboard.
"Where is Mr Howard planning to put it? Is it Townsville or Mackay or perhaps further down along the coastline on the Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast?
"Even then a guaranteed water supply to meet minimum safety concerns would be a tall order.
"A guarantee like that is tough at the best of times, let alone in the middle of the worst drought on record."
Mr Beattie is on a three-day trip to New Zealand to boost trade and economic ties.
© 2006 AAP
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Nuclear power 'a threat to water supply'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
From John Hill (Climate Change Action)
Dear All:
In addition to the very important point raised by Mr. Beattie about the extra water needed to run a nuclear power plant compared to a coal-fired power plant of about the same size (roughly 5,500 megalitres a year extra for a 1,400 megawatt plant), it is worth noting that wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and even natural gas powered plants use almost no water at all. This means that renewables would consume some 25,000 megalitres less a year for 1,400 megawatts produced by a nuclear plant, and about 19,500 megalitres less than a coal-fired plant of similar size!
This is reason enough to steer away from both nuclear and coal in Australia even if they do manage to figure out successful methods for the presently unsolved problems of carbon sequestration and safe disposal of nuclear waste.
Whenever planning begins for a power plant, the projected water savings of renewables and natural gas should be costed in. As far as I know this has not been done anywhere yet.
And let us not forget that nuclear plants heat the water they dispose of which damages the downstream environment and "permanently" wreck (at least in human terms) significant amounts of prime waterfront land - while continually exposing the surrounding environment to the danger of radioactive pollution - which is of particular concerns to any downstream communities.
John Hill
Post a Comment